84 Comments - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:41 pm: No. It would be incredibly irresponsible to keep digging the hole you’re trying to climb out of. All the sponsors of the repeal know Quinn would veto it. It’s a free, easy vote and very silly. - Anon - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:42 pm: The numbers are stark: we’re in deep(er) trouble if the tax increase isn’t extended. - Horace - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:44 pm: Negative…in fact I would support increasing it. If it costs $x a year to live in Illinois, then charge $x a year to live in Illinois. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:45 pm: No, but if Illinois elects a Republican Governor, then I urge her (or him) to repeal the tax hike on day one. I dare a GOP Governor, no, I double dog dare a GOP Governor to repeal the tax hike. The difference between campaiging and governing is clear only from the side of those governing. But if Governor Rutherford, or Governor Dillard, or Governor Whoever (R) wants to commit fiscal suicide, then please repeal the tax hike and enjoy your only term in office. - northernIL - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:46 pm: Don’t repeal it, but let it expire. - Sunshine - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:48 pm: Repeal this one and pass one even larger at a later date. At some point the cost of debt has got to start sinking in and causing everyone to really feel the pain. We must get our debt under control and it will require both much higher taxes and very hard spending cuts. If it takes slapping the big hornet’s nest to realize the stupidity of our actions, I say yes, repeal it so we all, and not just a few, can feel the real pain sooner. then this tax will seem like a drop in the bucket. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:53 pm: No, it was needed at the time and still is. I fully expect the temporary portion of it will be made permanent in the future. - Peggy R - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:54 pm: Yes. B/c it was passed by lame ducks on their last night in power. Lousy way to govern. Harms public trust. Budget cuts must occur. I went into that below. - mokenavince - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:59 pm: I aggree with Peggy R. and I voted yes looks like I’m on the wrong side of this issue. Oh well/ - Fed up - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:00 pm: ” all the sponsors know Quinn would veto it”. Well Quinn publicly stated he would veto a tax increase above 4% while campaigning. But yet he signed the bigger tax increase so yeah put it on his desk. what he says one day and what he does the next aren’t often the same he might remember his original promise and repeal this tax. - Jimbo - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:03 pm: It amazes me that the same folks can get traction with their supporters complaining about our bond rating/deficit one minute, and then say we should reduce revenue. Listen fellas, you can’t balance the budget with “x” so how can you live with “less than x”. It is a pretty simple equation. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:06 pm: CUT SPENDING! - reformer - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:09 pm: Those who want immediate repeal have the burden to specify exactly where they will cut $7 billion from the already shrunken budget. I’d like to see those legislators taking the immediate repeal pledge to also pledge that they will vote to slash $7 billion from education, health care, social services, and public safety, which accounts for 90% of the budget. - reformer - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:10 pm: Peggy R, moken You don’t like the WAY it was passed. It was the only time in state history that an income tax hike was not bipartisan. Since Republicans refused to permit any votes for it, Democrats had to do what was necessary to pass it with their votes alone. - soccermom - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:13 pm: I know it’s considered rude to mention facts in this type of discussion. Nevertheless: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.pdf - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:16 pm: –CUT SPENDING!– Problem solved. Where? - Hickory - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:18 pm: As long as we have the same three in power, I’m voting yes. Look at their history which has got us in this position. Get them out of office and I could change my mind. - Jimbo - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:18 pm: Since the repeal fans seem to have some math issues reformer, I don’t think we should slash education /snark - Peggy R - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:19 pm: Reformer, I don’t claim the passage of the tax was illegal; it was indecent and cowardly, however. If it didn’t have some degree of bipartisan support, it must be suspect. I don’t generally favor tax hikes to keep the govt as big as it is. I think most govt bodies like IL have betrayed the public trust by not using funds wisely. The state keeps coming for more money from a public facing lousy economic conditions, while the state and its “clients” feel no pain. We’re to keep giving and giving. For what? For others. moken–I am always a minority view here. Be careful associating w/me! - ChitownHV - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:20 pm: -CUT SPENDING- Imagine yourself as a laid off worker. It isn’t enough to “cut spending”, you need a source of revenue. So too the State; cuts alone won’t save you; You need more revenue to pay what’s late and future expenses. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:22 pm: C’mon Word, if you say it in ALL CAPS is carries more authority. Whoever yells loudest wins. - MOON - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:24 pm: CUT SPENDING There is a way to cut spending. Currently the unpaid vendors are receiving a interest rate on there unpaid bills in the amount of 9 to 12% annually. If the GOP would go along with a bonding program to pay off the vendors Illinois could float these bonds in the range of 5.5%. That would save the State substantial money regarding the interest payments to these vendors. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:29 pm: -CUT SPENDING- You mean from education? No, that’s clearly underfunded…IDOT No, the roads are falling apart…Human services? No, especially not when so many people need the services…DNR? The parks are falling apart…AH! Pensions! Those state employees need to be off the dole! Oh, yeah, we haven’t been paying into that, so cutting what we’ve been paying would be pretty difficult. - Jimbo - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:29 pm: Thanks soccermom, do you see how few states have flat income tax rates. I hear a lot about cutting programs that benefit the poor. How about amending the constitution to get a progressive tax rate before we do that eh? - danny - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:30 pm: There’s no way we can afford to repeal it. Not only that, we have to make it permanent. We also need to expand the sales tax base to include more services and reflect a modern economy. But we also need to cut, cut, cut. It’s obvious that the people of Illinois do not want even higher taxes. We got the tax hike, but now we need to drive spending back in line. While I personally hate what the cuts will do to education, health and human services, etc. it’s clear that people of Illinois would rather slash services than stomach billions of dollars in additional taxes. Quinn needs to make the tough decisions and propose a true balanced budget. - Jimbo - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:33 pm: You are totally correct danny. Although I don’t think anybody in Springfield has the spine to make any cuts that would actually impact the deficit, and I am positive none of them have the spine to raise taxes more, especially Quinn on both counts. - D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:37 pm: The only thing more stupid that repealing immediately is continuing to do the same thing that we have been doing…which seems likely - Aldyth - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:39 pm: Not unless you are willing to eliminate every state funded human service program in Illinois. I can guarantee if that were to happen, there would be massive turnover in Springfield come the next election. - Colossus - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:41 pm: I voted no because I live in the real world and love my state. - unspun - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:41 pm: No, the tax increase was long overdue and didn’t go far enough. I agree that pension and Medicaid systems need to be re-tooled to ease the budget pressure, but it must be done in concert with the tax increase. As for cuts, well, there isn’t much left; of course there are probably nominal dollars that can be cut from some areas, but they would mostly be symbolic. - Knome Sane - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:45 pm: Unfortunately we are beyond budget cutting our way out of this mess. My biggest beef is that the General Assembly wants to fund new programs or expand others. There is no simple fix to this and the Republicans lack the fortitude to put up their own plan and sell it. - bored now - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:50 pm: i am all for holding the vote and then removing any state funding from districts where the state reps and state senators vote for repeal. clearly, those legislators want to reduce state spending, so let’s eliminate it (state spending) in their areas… - Ahoy - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:53 pm: No, we simply cannot afford immediate repeal since neither side of the aisle is willing to make the cuts that would be required. Even for all the Republican’s talk, they just don’t have the stomach for drastic cuts. I am in favor of spending reforms such as moderate pension reform, Medicaid reform and streamlining government services so the tax increase can expire as scheduled. Additionally, I think we need to look into revenue enhancing opportunities like the gaming bill and further workers comp reform that would make our State more attractive to employers… more jobs, more revenue. - Jake From Elwood - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:56 pm: Thanks for the link, SoccerMom. Interesting that we are tied with Utah–two very different states, no? Leave the tax rate alone, but don’t raise it. - Peter Snarker - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:57 pm: Anyone who suggests spending cuts in this forum is loudly, consistently and immediately “shouted down” with a chorus of “Then name specific areas that can be cut”. Once in a while someone actually attempts to name some specific areas to be cut, only to be meant with additional derision as to (1) the cuts are a drop-in-the-proverbial bucket and therefore worthless or (2) a litany of the parade-of-horribles that would occur if the cuts actually happened - that specific programs, people, institutions and segments of society would suffer somehow. Those are fair points to make, and valid indeed, but let’s be fair - most of us posting here - I dare say all but perhaps a few - simply do not have the ability to point out specific programs, etc., that could be cut b/c the budget is so massive - we just dont have the information. We do, however, have a sneaking suspicion that, given the information and the will - there are probably programs that could be cut. Secondly, someone or some entity is going to get “gored” in cuts, whether it is the individual who enjoys hiking in our state parks or it is the hospital being reimbursed for care provided to sick individuals or what have you. That is a truism, but does not necessarily argue against the cut being made from the bigger picture. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:01 pm: As noted above, I voted against repealing it. The biggest problem with the temporary tax increase was the way it was sold. While they didn’t outright lie, the spokepersons and interest groups pushing it left the impression it was cure-all for ALL the State’s financial problems. People that understood the bill and the State’s situation (including the Legislature) knew it was nothing more than a one to three year band-aid. In order for the Legislature and Governor to actually tackle the problem like they should, they’re going to have to admit they pretty much lied to the general public … and they have a political problem if they admit it. While potentially political suicide (remember Ogilvie?), it’s the only way forward … to clearly and honestly explain that the previous hike was nothing more than a band-aid to kick the problem down the road and that permanently fixing the problem requires BOTH more revenue in the form of increased taxes and deep, painful spending cuts. If you want to avoid spending cuts, then the tax hike needs to be even bigger. At this point, the only real debate can be about where the cuts are and what form the increased revenue takes. Unless / until the IL Constitution is changed, you’re stuck with a flat income tax. The way to increase those revenues is higher rates or lower deductions; same on the corporate tax side. The State sales tax could be increased or expanded. The cut side of the equation is even tougher; a lot of the programs people talk about cutting are either Federal programs that can’t be cut or contractual obligations like the pensions. Once you get past those, the only big pile of money left is Education. If the State cuts Ed funding, then local property taxes would have to go up and, unless that deduction is removed, State income taxes will go down proportionally to the local property tax increases. It’s going to take real political courage to try to sell a 8 - 10% income tax rate … even if it includes a sunset clause in about 5 - 10 years. Something like that MIGHT be able to be achieved if everyone gets on the same page. It could happen, just like the Cubs could win the World Series … but it ain’t gonna … No pretty solutions … unless we find those magic beans of Rod’s. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:01 pm: –Those are fair points to make, and valid indeed, but let’s be fair - most of us posting here - I dare say all but perhaps a few - simply do not have the ability to point out specific programs, etc., that could be cut b/c the budget is so massive - we just dont have the information.– That’s a copout. It’s easily accessible online. - Foxfire - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:03 pm: “Immediate” repeal is not going to happen. However, I do dislike the manner in which the tax was passed and the fact that it forestalled the inevitable reductions in service and reforms in programs that will be required for the state to achieve sustainability going forward. I do favor repeal because I believe the income tax increase is harming more than helping the state during these tough economic times. There are other things that could have been pursued to provide the same financial impact, but the Governor and General Assembly took the easy route. That’s what got us into the mess and we need to try something else. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:04 pm: Fix the tax rates (and yes, the constitution) so it’s not a flat rate. And yes, I would be paying a higher rate than a lot of people. - Knome Sane - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:07 pm: There used to be a time, not all that long ago, where budget shortfalls could be offset through “new revenue growth”. While I believe it is true that the budgeteers used the concept of “new revenue growth” liberally, the actual growth in new revenue could be applied to such an offset. Folks, we are waaaay beyond that. Just as you can’t “tax your way to prosperity” we can’t cut our way there, either. It is time for the General Assembly (Dems and Repubs alike) and the Governor to get serious about fixing this problem. Short of a federal bailout, I don’t see a path (especially with the pension shortfall). - Peter Snarker - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:15 pm: Wordslinger - I agree with your perspective as posted on here the majority of the time - and agree here that a revenue increase was the prudent thing to do. With all due respect, I do not think it is a cop-out. I acknowledge I am simply not in a position to best determine what each individual agency’s priorities should be focused on in an environment where cuts are being made - I would trust my appointed Directors to make those types of management decisions given the budget parameters I set. I simply am saying the lines on a budget simply do not provide me personally with the information needed to gauge (1) program effectiveness and (2) program efficiency. In other words - while I can see that two state parks are each supported to the amount of X dollars per year, I do not feel I am in the best position to make a determination arbitrarily which park is a better candidate to be cut. I dont think that is a cop-out. I think it’s allowing people at the correct management level in-put into the process forced by budgetary realities. At the top-most level, with a view towards the state’s health as a whole, the job, in my view, is to assure that it all “balances” out to a sustainable path forward for Illinois. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:19 pm: ==There are other things that could have been pursued to provide the same financial impact== Ya right. I would love to see you name that $7 billion in “other things.” I voted against the repeal. Not only do I think it should not be repealed, I don’t think it was big enough. I also favor amending the Constitution to implement a graduated income tax. In addition, yes, you do have to cut. But anybody who suggests that you can cut 1/5th of the General Funds budget is just simply not credible. It was always going to take a combination of things to balance the budget. They did the revenue thing (albeit not enough) and they still need to do the cuts. - Peggy R - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:19 pm: I’d be curious to know how many folks responding here are state employees, current or retired. - Peter Snarker - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:20 pm: For the record - I think it is relatively clear at this moment in time that our younger generation will be in an unhappy political and fiscal environment where the debate will endlessly go back and forth between tax increases and service cuts, with likely plenty of both, see-sawing back-and-forth as the political winds shift from time to time, as they inevitably will in an environment when the two major parties fiscal solutions cause pain. Not a lot of happiness to report fiscally. Tough decisions across the board. A tax increase is a tough decision. No one “wants” it unless stuck with that as an almost last option. Similar when it comes to cuts. No one wants to see homeless veterans and hungry children. These arent easy times. - Irish - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:30 pm: No, The fiscal state of the Illinois would be far worse without the income tax increase. The real problem is that the very people who are stirring up the tax increase debate are the very ones that stopped the full plan from unfolding. If the tax increase was coupled with the plan for borrowing at a lower rate, we would be in a better place than we are now. But they were too timid to stand up and help. Cross and the Civic committee and the IPI remind me of the males, I won’t call them men, who dressed like women or hid to get on the lifeboats when the Titanic went down. The ship of state is in trouble yet these jamoches can only stand in the lifeboats hurling insults back at the ones that are trying to do something. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:31 pm: ===I acknowledge I am simply not in a position to best determine what each individual agency’s priorities should be focused on in an environment where cuts are being made=== I enjoy reading your comments Peter Snarker, but sometimes it’s OK to not leave a comment, especially when you don’t have the information you need to make your argument. Lots of people here do know from current or past experience how to measure which agencies are effective and which are not, where to prioritize, etc. This is a blog for people who are consumed by Illinois politics and government, and they bring strong, informed and diverse opinions to the debates. Sometimes saying nothing and simply reading is the best part of CapitolFax. There are a lot of smart people here (and some who aren’t terribly smart or informed too). Listen, read and think. If you have something to add, it’s generally always going to be welcome. But don’t take it as a personal attack when someone calls you out on something you wrote. - Plutocrat03 - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:35 pm: Has there ever been a tax the dems wanted to eliminate or reduce? No matter how much revenue is raised, the demand for new programs outstrips the supply of money. - Cynic - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:38 pm: While clearly the state needs the money from the income tax increase, real spending reductions only happen when the money is not available for the state to spend. The welfare state advances by spending more money than is raised, declaring a crisis, then enacting a tax increase to solve the crisis the welfare state created. At some point, someone has to say no to more spending. - Thoughts... - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:39 pm: I’d take 2% of my income back in a heartbeat, but I’d have to say no. TO echo many others, it took a long time for the dome to muster the political gumption to *start* to do something about the state’s problems. This is certainly no time for them to be sticking their heads back in the sand. - Peter Snarker - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:43 pm: 47th Ward - And obviously I like reading everyone’s take on here. I dont mean to make myself look stupid or uninformed - I guess just take my occassional post as a “man-on-the-street” and assign it value accordingly. My “argument” wasnt that the tax increase shouldnt have happened, it’s that there have got to be cuts somewhere, even if lil’ ol’ me doesnt know exactly where they could come from. And I’m being serious, that isnt snark. If everyone out here is more privy to things than I and is uniform pretty much that cuts are not feasible then so be it. Anyway, 47th, I voted for you and Dupage Dan as the “posters of the year” for 2011, so I’ll take it to heart and shut-up a bit more. Never bad advice, as Twain once said, about keeping one’s mouth shut and letting people wonder… heh. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:44 pm: –Has there ever been a tax the dems wanted to eliminate or reduce?– Seems to me there was a little dustup in Congress last month where the GOP majority didn’t like a Dem proposal to keep a payroll tax cut. Until they did. Many Dems support the Friedman-Reagan EITC for low income workers. Republicans used to. Preckwinkle is rolling back a portion of the Cook County Sales tax. Emanuel is getting rid of the head tax. Dems who voted for the state constitution repealed the personal property tax. And most Dems have been staunch in keeping food and drugs exempt from the sales tax. I seem to recall Blago’s GRT going down unanimously. Hope that helps. - Irish - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:46 pm: One of the things that people have to realize is that it takes money to run Government. One of the posters yesterday commented that when we start running government to save money we might as well shut the government down. He/she was right. It also takes increases in the revenue because there are always increases in costs. I am not saying that we should not cut waste and try to keep our costs as low as possible, However when you start cutting back on services to save money then you are no longer in the government business. Example; We have a large snowfall accompanied by wind. Now do you want the managers of the snow clearing to be figuring how they can get the roads/streets/highways open and safely passable as soon as possible? Or do you want them to be figuring how much snow clearing they can do with a certain dollar figure. What if your street or route home is the one that would put them over their budget? What if they decided they could not afford to clear it? Is that how you want your public services run? Or do you want them to do a complete job. Now take that same scenerio and apply it to every agency in State government. State government is in the business of supplying services to the public. If you want the services you will have to pay for them. Costs increase. Revenues must also increase. End of story. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:58 pm: Peter Snarker, This is a bit dated (been retired a while) but, as a former State employee and somewhat knowledgeable about a portion of one State agency’s budget and how they used to arrive at it, I can state that everyone helping to generate the budget numbers had a vested interest in having a bigger budget the next year. Unfortunately, that’s how a bureaucracy works. The more money you control, the more people you have working for you and the more ‘power’ you have. Personally, I was more of a technocrat. As long as I had enough to do the job I needed to accomplish, I didn’t care if the budget or staff went up or down from year to year. The problem, however, was so-called base-line budgeting process … where the next year’s budget was based on the previous year. If you cut your budget one year, then you got less the next year. If you came up short or spent your entire budget, you could credibly argue you needed more money. Because of that base-line process with built in growth / inflation assumptions, there was always a mad rush to spend whatever ‘left-over’ money existed in the budget every year. That spending was know as ‘use it or lose it’. A lot of so-called lapse period spending fell into this category. Some of the money was spent wisely on a portion next year’s supplies / durable goods or down payments on capital expenses but a lot of it was just thrown into the wind on wants, not needs. Even if no cuts are made to the State budget, just changing to zero-based budgeting (justify all your needs every year) would be a big improvement. At least then all the ‘needs’ might get addressed instead of the ‘wants’. And you wouldn’t get penalized next year for not actually saving money this year. But I don’t expect that to happen as long as political hacks (mostly w/o business experience) continue to be appointed as Directors. What every Governor needs (and very few have) is a financial hatchet man who only has allegiance to the Gov, not to the political party. Such a man can, sometimes, achieve a measure of savings in State government … or they can totally ruin the State;s budget. (I’ll leave it to the other knowledgeable bloggers here to assume the names of recent and not so recent examples.) As far as waste in State government, sure, I know where some exists in my former agency. Is it a lot? Maybe not … by a bit here and there adds up. But eliminating the waste then brings us to a different philosophical discussion: do we really want a totally effective and efficient government? I would say some historical examples answer no … - zatoichi - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:58 pm: You can cut the state budget back to 1988 or any other year you want. Then find a cost that has not increased since whatever start time you want. Health care, fuel, homes, plywood, corn, milk, OJ, clothes, copper wire, road salt. All continual cost growth. Gonna cut salaries? How many state workers will be left? Cut prices to vendors? How many of them will stay? I want to buy toothpaste at the 1988 retail price of $.50 a 10oz tube. The fact that Colgate sells that same tube today at $.75 wholesale (to cover their cost) shouldn’t be a major problem. Where can you buy health insurance at any deductible level at the same price as in 1988? I want my property tax at 1988 levels. The fact that that level of tax will not pay for the plows for the street in front of my house today shouldn’t be a problem. Stuff costs more regardless of how you feel about it. Sure repeal the tax increase. Cut more. Then people will start complaining because the services they expect are no longer there. The increased tax was needed and will be needed along with cuts and probably another tax increase. As Schnorf has said several time it’s going to take serious pain to get out of this mess. Who is going to pay the price? - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 4:00 pm: Reduce Medicaid to the benefit level of surrounding states ($1B saved). Freeze subsidies to high speed rail. Freeze all other subsidies. Block grant pension payment at a fixed level to local school boards and municipalities at a stable level with identical employee contributions, anything above that is the municipality’s problem. Cut spending across the board for the rest for 5 years until the budget stabilized. Consider the “Miller Proposal.” All unfunded state mandates frozen for 5 years. - Peggy R - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 4:09 pm: wordslinger, Boehner handled the FICA tax poorly and his members weren’t happy. The GOP House had a bill that extended the tax cut for a year. How the GOP managed to look like the bad guys for not wanting to extend it for 2 lousy months as O et al wanted is very bizarre. The GOP Senators sold them out. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 4:10 pm: ===If everyone out here is more privy to things than I and is uniform pretty much that cuts are not feasible then so be it.=== I don’t think anyone is saying cuts are not feasible. What some of us would like to see from those advocating against taxes, is what do they want to cut. Specifically. Then we can debate that specific proposal to see whether it’s better public policy to make the cut or to raise the revenue needed to prevent the cut. But Peggy R and Plutocrat and Cincinnatus and others say we should repeal taxes and make cuts instead. No specifics. The Illinois Republicans outsourced their brains to the Civic Committee and the IPI, and they are saying the same thing. Fine. They should draft the repeal legislation and craft a budget that specificies which programs will be cut and by how much. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of hot air. - Peter Snarker - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 4:19 pm: 47th Ward - Gotcha. I concur. And that was probably the nicest anyone has ever told me to shut the hell up in my life. Beer on me at O’Donovan’s someday keeping it friendly in the 47th. - Earnest - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 4:25 pm: No. There are critical services for people and the state needs the money to pay for them. I find the “just cut waste” argument facile and insufficient. I agree that, even with the (permanent) tax increase, we still can’t afford all we have and are doing and thus will need to make difficult choices. - TCB - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 4:28 pm: @47th I would love to see the number of appropriation bills the GOPs have filed in the last couple years. I’ll be we could count them on one hand. - Wensicia - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 4:29 pm: NO, you cannot repeal taxes until the economy improves or the state finds a way out of this pension mess. Sure, cuts can be made in many areas, but they’ll not come near to solving the debt problem without seriously impairing services this state must provide. It’s my feeling these taxes will become permanent. - Harold - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 4:37 pm: IPI releases a budget every year that does just that. - soccermom - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 4:48 pm: @Peter Snarker — There are lots of places that cuts could, and should, be made. But they don’t add up to the billions that would be needed to get things on track in a single fiscal year. Believe it or not, the size of state programs tends to reflect their importance. We put really big money into Medicaid, education, human services, and Corrections. And it’s extremely difficult to make significant cuts in those programs without doing permanent damage to large numbers of people. So yeah, I’m a big fan of the high-profile cut that demonstrates your bona fides and commitment to bringing spending down to the lowest possible level. But here in Illinois, the lowest possible level is pretty darn high. (And here’s my first suggestion: Let’s sell the art at Thompson Center that is so badly displayed and inadequately curated, quick before it’s damaged beyond repair. The Claire Zeissler on 16 really needs to go to an appreciative and loving home. Who’s with me?!?) - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 4:49 pm: IPI’s budget release is smoke and mirrors, and everyone, including IPI, knows that. - Southern Peggy - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 5:03 pm: 47th ward. I offered specific ideas on the prior post about the tax cut anniversary. Social services must be cut. We don’t have the $ to do all the nice things that some people and their families ought to do for themselves. Cut salaries, bennies, staff size, grants to private individuals and firms. Narrow the qualifications for receipt of such funds to the neediest or the most beneficial to all of society. The list is endless. Administrative costs can be cut at every agency, no doubt. Educational admin costs can be cut even w/o combining local districts. Govt employees are no more entitled to retain stature and bennies than private sector employees are. Give me a budget copy, compensate me for the days I would spend at the task, and I’ll produce a detailed report. These are comboxes, here, after all. What a cop-out, this “detail the cuts” line is. As a taxpayer, I expect our elected officials and paid employees to be be able to do this to the benefit of the public. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 5:17 pm: ===Give me a budget copy, compensate me for the days I would spend at the task=== Sorry, Illinois is broke. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 5:43 pm: ===IPI releases a budget every year that does just that.=== Thanks Harold, that should make it easy for Cross and Radogno. Maybe they’ll introduce it as a budget bill and vote for it this year. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 5:45 pm: From a budgetary rather than poltical point of view, I don’t think the tax increase can be rescinded or allowed to expire. If the GA and the Gov rise to the occasion, I think $5B or more in cuts will still need to be made over the next couple of years. As a starting point, if I were the Administration and the 2 D leaders, I would probably take Leader Radogno’s list from last year where she said she could put half the needed votes on it and ask Leader Cross what he could do off that list from his caucus. - 1776 - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 5:47 pm: I think that 68 percent of respondents also think Tillman is a joke. - 1776 - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 5:50 pm: I agree with Steve and will take it a step further. Tell the GOP that you will provide them with an up and down vote on their budget bill that includes total revenue minus the income tax money. Use the standard “if and only if HB XXX becomes law” in the introductory so that both bills are linked and put them on the board. No votes on any other pieces of legislation until we have a chance to vote on the budget since its the TOP priority. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 6:12 pm: To follow Schnorf, I think we could pretty easily come up with a list where each of the caucuses provide half the votes. Tell Republicans to come up with their list of things they are willing to cut, and the Democrats will match them dollar for dollar. But I can promise you this: not a single House Republican will vote to cut the Medicaid reimbursement rate for doctors. As far as repealing the tax increase, i’d support calling that for a vote if a repeal of all corporate loopholes and putting the Constitutional amendment for a graduated income tax and decoupling the corporate tax rate were included. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 6:35 pm: If I were the R leaders, I would try to consider a rate cut reduction (although our rates are low now generally) matched dollar for dollar with eligibility/Re-D/services cut (which will be tough given federal requirements). Approached that way you might get a total cut of $800M-$1B. Or, I would give the providers the option of avoiding the rate cuts by increasing the bed taxes, if we have enough room left to do so. I don’t like these suggestions, but something has to be done and Medicaid is one of the places that has to give. - AC - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 6:41 pm: If we can afford to cut taxes, we can afford to pay vendors and state employees as agreed. - Southern Peggy - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 7:06 pm: To Rich M. Re: the state is broke. So, I’ve heard.;^D The odd thing about this survey is that if only people “in the know” have valid opinions, it’s meaning is limited. Those folks “in the know” in state govt are typically invested in the status quo and not cutting the budget. I should note for the record that Peggy R = Southern Peggy. I had to move to a desktop for some doc printing. I didn’t realize I had a different name set up here. Cheers. - CicularFiringSquad - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 7:19 pm: Funny no mentioned that Billboards and GOPie fraud friends voted to SPEND the money…and now he wants to hike school taxes to fund pensions… Yikes - reformer - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 7:59 pm: Moody’s commentary warned that our rating could get worse if there were an “Early phase-out of 2011 tax increases without offsetting binding expenditure actions, increasing the structural deficit.” - reformer - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 8:02 pm: Peggy R You write that state government is too big. Are you aware that IL has the fewest state employees per capita of any state? Or that state spending as a % of state GDP places us among the 10 lowest-spending states? - Skirmisher - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 8:03 pm: The Governor and the Democrats need to bite the bullet and slash Medicaid eligibility and make serious pension program changes, especially as it relates to the wildly out of control teacher’s retirement system (I think “reform” is a misnomer, however). These things would at least demonstate some degree of serious intent to reduce spending. That being said, the State cannot afford to eliminate the tax hike. We had a serious structural deficit problem and no amount of cuts are going to cure that. In fact, the Demos were short-sighted by not making the tax increase bigger and more comprehensive (Tax retirement benefits, for instance). - Danny - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 9:54 pm: “I acknowledge I am simply not in a position to best determine what each individual agency’s priorities should be focused on in an environment where cuts are being made - I would trust my appointed Directors to make those types of management decisions given the budget parameters I set.” I agree to some extent, Peter. Agency directors should be able to reduce the programs they feel to be the least impactful and least efficient. But there are still some other things that can be cut. Many line-items are for small grant amounts (less than $1 or $2 million). I could certainly be wrong here, but my guess is that the overhead operations on many of these grants aren’t worth it. Either adequately fund the program, eliminate it or consolidate it with another line item. Any other line items simply must be reduced by 5% with program directors deciding how to best allocate these more scarce resources. Grant recipients need to swallow fair and evenly distributed cuts and diversifying their funding options. Other programs are valuable, but simply need to be eliminated or dramatically reduced. Agency administrative appropriations must be cut too. Oh, and no more pay raises for public employees until the budget is balanced and/or public employee salaries reflect private sector wages. I am whole-heartedly a union lover, but we need to be realistic. We have to find $2+ billion somewhere and unfortunately salaries constitute the bulk of most budgets. This should all add up close to $3 billion. Yeah, it will hurt. I’d rather part of that money came from expanding the tax base, but either way we just need to rip off the band aid and do it. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:55 pm: Since there is clearly an excess of money available for corporate tax cuts and EITC givebacks, there must not be a need for the tax increase on everybody in the middle. - danny - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 8:16 am: Informer, Thanks for assuming that all individuals who do not work 9-5s are lazy state employees shirking off their work. You do realize that medical professionals, self-employed/small business owners, homemakers, students, firefighters, police officers, retail workers, restaurant employees, etc all work nontraditional hours? You know, all of the people who make our communities pleasant places to live in and not just a place where you can make a buck. That’s what a community IS. I really hope you were being sarcastic and I just missed it. - CircularFiringSquad - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 8:18 am: Here are some fun facts for Billboards & the other GOPies ( from Illinois State House News) “Since Illinois increased its corporate income tax by 46 percent from 4.8 percent to 7 percent this past year, several unexpected and expected changes occurred. The number of limited liability companies, or LLCs, and corporations registered with the state actually increased, from 71,449 in fiscal 2010 to 73,130 in fiscal 2011, according to the Illinois Secretary of State. The number of non-farming jobs increased by 1 percent, from 5.6 million in 2010 to 5.7 million in 2011, according to the Illinois Department of Employment Security.” More biz, more jobs and companies like Caterpillar are importing jobs from overseas to IL plants. Meanwhile it should alway be noted that Billboards was willing to spend the extra state cash available from the tax hike - Lizard People - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 9:16 am: LLCs don’t pay corporate income taxes. And the unemployed who become self-employed? They start an LLC. - Anon - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 9:24 am: Permanently increase state income tax by an additional 1%, freeze spending,refinance debt, and implement term limits. Now, how painful is that? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.